Judiciary. Taxes were to be apportioned among the States, but Congress had no authority to levy them. Commerce was in the control of the States. Each State could lay duties and imposts. Congress had no power to enforce its own measures.

"In the very modes of its operation there was a monstrous defect, which distorted the whole system from the true proportions and character of a government. It gave to the Confederation the power of contracting debts, and at the same time withheld the power of paying them. It created a corporate body, formed by the Union and known as the United States, and gave to it the faculty of borrowing money and incurring other obligations. It provided the mode in which its treasury should be supplied for the reimbursement of the public credit. But over the sources of that supply, it gave the government contracting the debt no power whatever. Thirteen independent legislatures granted or withheld the means which were to enable the General Government to pay the debts which the general Constitution had enabled it to contract, according to their own convenience or their own views and feelings as to the purposes for which those debts had been incurred.”1

As each State paid its own delegates in Congress, the smaller the number, the less the expense. Oftentimes a State would have no representative. The Treaty of Peace, signed September 3d, 1783, could not be ratified till January 14th, for want of representatives, and then there were but twenty-three members present. In April of that year there were present twenty-five. members from eleven States, nine being represented by two each. Three members, therefore-one-eighth of the whole-could negative any important measure.

The Treaty of Peace was made by the United States

1 Curtis's History of the Constitution, I, p. 181.

with Great Britain, but Congress could not enforce its provisions. Various articles were constantly violated by the States, and Congress could not prevent it. Great Britain declared her readiness to carry the treaty into effect when the United States would do the same.

As the General Government could not carry out its own treaties with foreign powers because of the refusal of the States, so it could not protect a State against insurrection or rebellion. The outbreak in Massachusetts in 1786, known as Shays's Insurrection, which embraced a fifth of the inhabitants in several of the most populous counties, caused great alarm through the country. Armed men surrounded the courthouses, and finally the insurgents were embodied in arms against the Government. The National Government was powerless to aid the State; the Articles of Confederation gave Congress no authority in such

a case.

The weakness of the league of States was made abundantly manifest. It is not surprising that Washington should write as he did to a member of Congress, "You talk, my good sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. *** Influence is not government. Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once.'

"1

The weakness of the Confederation, especially in its relation to the revenue, had been early seen by Washington. He saw "that to form a "that to form a new constitution, which would give consistency, stability, and dignity to the Union, was the great problem of the time." So, too, Mr. Hamilton, without doubt the ablest statesman of his age, was convinced before the Articles of Confederation went into operation that they could never

1 Curtis, I, p. 274. 2Ibid, p. 202.

answer the purposes of government. As early as 1780, he sketched the outlines of a system of government for the United States, embodying almost every feature of our present Constitution.1

In May, 1785, Governor Bowdoin of Massachusetts suggested the appointment of special delegates from the States to define the powers with which Congress. ought to be invested. A resolution was accordingly passed by the legislature of Massachusetts, declaring the Articles of Confederation inadequate, and calling a convention of delegates from all the States. But the matter was not brought before Congress by the members of that body from Massachusetts.

In January, 1786, the legislature of Virginia appointed commissioners to meet with those from other States to consider the subject of trade, with reference. to a uniform system of commercial regulations. The meeting was held in September, at Annapolis, Maryland. Only five States were represented; viz., New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia; but great results followed from the Convention. The committee representing so few States did not enter upon the proper business of the Convention, but prepared a report, drawn up by Mr. Hamilton, expressing their unanimous conviction that a general convention should be called to devise such provisions as might render "the Constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."

This report, though addressed to the States represented, was also sent to Congress as well as to the other States. That body, on the twenty-first of February, 1787, adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That, in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday in May next, a onvention of delegates, who shall have been appointed.

1 Curtis, I, p. 204.

by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of the Union."

In accordance with this recommendation, all the States but Rhode Island appointed delegates, and the Convention assembled at Philadelphia, Monday, May 14th, 1787. The organization was not, however, effected, for want of a quorum, till the twenty-fifth, when George Washington was unanimously elected. President.

This Convention contained many very eminent men. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Rufus King, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, and Edmund Randolph would have been distinguished in any assembly. There were fifty-five members in all, most of whom were illustrious for their character and public services. Dr. Franklin had been a member of the Convention of 1754. Three had been present at the Congress of 1765. Seven had been members of the First Continental Congress. Eight were among the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Eighteen were at the same time delegates to the Continental Congress; and of the whole number there were only twelve who had not sat at some time in that body.1

If the Convention was composed of extraordinary men, it had before it extraordinary work. They were to form a complete system of republican government, with no example for their guidance. This was their real work, though this was not distinctly present

to all of them at first. Some were thinking only of amending the Articles of Confederation; but Hamilton and Madison and others were prepared to enter at once upon the construction of the organic law for a supreme general government, without regard, either in form or substance, to the existing Articles of Confederation.1

Soon after the organization of the Convention, Mr. Randolph submitted a series of resolutions, embodying his views of the government desirable to be established. They were also the views of Mr. Madison. Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, submitted, on the same day, a draft of a Constitution. All these were referred to the Committee of the Whole, and the discussion was commenced. The first resolution adopted in Committee of the Whole was the first of the series offered by Mr. Randolph, somewhat modified. It was as follows: "Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme Legislative, Judiciary, and Executive."

On the thirteenth of June, the Committee reported a series of resolutions to the Convention. On the fifteenth, Mr. Patterson of New Jersey offered resolutions expressing the views of those who favored amending the Articles of Confederation, and opposed the formation of a new Constitution. The whole subject was then again referred to the Committee of the Whole, and debated till the nineteenth, when the Committee reported adversely to Mr. Patterson's plan, and submitted the resolutions formerly reported. These resolutions were debated in the Convention from day to day, some great questions, like that of suffrage in the Senate and House of Representatives, being occasionally referred to a special committee. On the twenty-third of July,

1 Towle's Analysis, p. 31.